Talk:Political economy/Archive 2
This is an archive of past discussions about Political economy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
True Political Economy
Read if you wish
|
---|
The Political Economy is the area of philosophy whose aim is to explain the role of man in nature, in society, as well as in the new nature created by its actions on the planet. (Where is the truth?)
The product is a result of the PROCESS.
The ability of commodity to satisfy some need we call QUALITY. (Vjekoslav Brkić, Osijek.)--213.202.80.195 (talk) 07:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)-- |
Intro Sentence
The writer is confused here when he starts the article with the following:
"Political economy was a term used for studying production and trade, and their relations with law, custom, and government, as well as with the distribution of national income and wealth"
Political economy is a term used for studying production, exchange and distribution of the total social product. In other words, production and trade and their relations with law, custom and government, etc. is the same thing as the distribution of the national income and wealth. These are not separate functions as the phrase 'as well as' implies. I think this opening sentence should be rewritten. What I have is better but still lame. Anyone agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.88.181 (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Completely agree. I changed it in accordance with WP: TENSE. If it's an issue of past and present definitions, the intro should be reworked entirely. — Californian Treehugger
Gentlemen, we all agree that there is a problem with the definition of "Political economy", but I do not agree with any of the offered definition, because:
Political economy is part of philosophy whose aim is not "to study" but "to explain", and "to provide the answers" to the questions:
What it is: national wealth, man, manufacturing, product, goods, work, money, exchange, market, price, profit, capital, ownership, power, government, bureaucracy, tax, democracy, freedom, coercion, morality, law, crisis, war, a lie or the truth?
How many more wars and crises need to experience humanity, rather than just yourself answer the question: What are we doing on this planet?
How many more people should be killed until we get rid of utopian questions: Where are we going and where we should go? What should we believe?
The real questions are: "How and why" we go where we're going? What is true and what is false? Why do people lie?
Finally, look at who uses the term Political Economy - philosophers, and who misused the term - "economists", and why - that you can read in a previous article, if you want. Cheers! Vjekoslav Brkic, Osijek.213.202.80.195 (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Dr. Gawande's comment on this article
Dr. Gawande has reviewed economy&oldid=718821165 this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
This is a complex area, and really should be broken down into political economy (domestic) or PE and political economy (international) or IPE. people reading this will learn nothing about PE or IPE. The article is more like an undergraduate survey paper on the idea of PE. What will be informative is the essential content of major contributions to PE (and IPE separately) over the years and how the field has evolved and what the current state of the art is and what the big unanswered questions are.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Gawande has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
- Reference : Gawande, Kishore, 2005. "The structure of lobbying and protection in U.S. agriculture," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3722, The World Bank.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Roemer's comment on this article
Dr. Roemer has reviewed economy&oldid=721220465 this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
I think this is a fair summary of the main approaches of political economy.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Roemer has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
- Reference : De Donder, Philippe & Roemer, John E, 2013. "An allegory of the political influence of the top 1%," CEPR Discussion Papers 9745, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Dr. Perotti's comment on this article
Dr. Perotti has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
The entry summarizes well some historical background of the theme and offers a good list of reviews on its components in the different disciplines. I added one reference, in general the work referenced is the state of the art (in the economic discipline) on this topic.
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
We believe Dr. Perotti has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:
- Reference : Perotti, Enrico C & Schwienbacher, Armin, 2007. "The Political Origin of Pension Funding," CEPR Discussion Papers 6100, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Recent changes - Piketty and others
I have reverted these changes again as the added content introduces a number of problems: 1) Two (somewhat duplicate) mentions of Piketty give this single author too much weight (see WP:WEIGHT). Especially the lead should only contain a summary of the most significant facts. 2) A student article, partially based on Google Ngram Viewer results, is not a reliable source. If these conclusions are correct, they need to be directly based on the published research of an acknowledged academic expert. 3) WP:PEACOCK and non-neutral language like "famously" and "embarrassingly" should not be used. 4) Commercial links to book sellers and publishers should be avoided, especially when a ISBN number is available. Please discuss here, if you disagree. GermanJoe (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
—
I do not agree with your decision to revert changes and when considering the below information, I think you will agree that it was done in error.
1) Safe to say that Pikkety's work is sufficiently notable to mention him both in the history summary and in the lower text. 2) Source is more than reliable. PhD students are cited all the time. The publication Policy Options is also reputed and reliable. 3) I undid this language according to the WP:PEAcock guidelines in the version you reverted. 4) I am not great as using wikipedia's formatting for citations yet, so I simply copy-pasted the ref on Capital in the 21st Century page. If this is a commercial link, it is from there. Worth checking out.
I think there is a strong basis for undoing your recent revert. If you don't agree, please discuss before changing others work. Its highly discouraging for SMEs who do this on a volunteer basis. Stapler1930 (talk) 12:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Stapler1930:, I do not agree with most of your points:
- Piketty was mentioned three times in the text, which is clearly undue weight. Also, no other modern scholar is explicitly mentioned in the lead, so it's not clear why Piketty's work needs extra attention in a summary section. On a sidenote, he and his publication are still mentioned in the article.
- No, PhD students are not cited all the time. There may be a few occasional cases where such an author can be used for encyclopedic content, but it is certainly not common practise on Wikipedia (see also WP:RS).
- "famously", "embarrasingly" and similar qualifiers clearly violate WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPOV, I am not sure why you insist on reverting this part. Claims like "Political economy has gained renewed attention" are opinion and need a reliable independent source to be retained.
- The shop URL is redundant, as an ISBN is provided. Wikipedia guidelines discourage the usage of such links unless they are absolutely needed.
- As an additional point: of course input and edits from topic experts are greatly appreciated, but all editors here (including myself) are volunteers with the same rights and responsibilities, when it comes to editing article content. Let's continue to work on a consensus here please, before changing the original article version yet again (see also WP:BRD as a suggested voluntary approach to solve such disagreements). If we can't come to a consensus, we could also ask for additional help at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. GermanJoe (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- I do not agree that the weight is undue. If you are unwilling to find out more about the subject before passing judgement, notice simply that there is significantly more text and activity on the page Capital in the 21st Century than the page on political economy. This should give you some sense for the weight of his work. Another investigation you can undertake is to compare the citation volume of Capital in the 21st Century to any of the other works on the political economy page. You will find Piketty drastically overshadows all other works on the page.
- False. PhD students are cited ALL. THE. TIME. You probably have not noticed because you assume academic authors always are PhD holders which is not the case. Most academic publications do not distinguish because between PhD holders and PhD students, they just opt to list the author's name and university. This is because it is a fundamental principal of research that validity and reliability is determined not by who the author is (see Ad hominem), but by the quality of the publication medium and its review process Policy Options. If the publication is reliable, the work is reliable.
- I don't object to changing the language. Like I wrote in the above post, I fixed this language after your first revert. You then reverted back past my new version which conformed with WP:PEACOCK
- OK. Again, read the first post more carefully. I am telling you that it was an innocent mistake on my part because I copy-pasted the citation that is on another wikipedia page, Capital in the 21st Century. Once you permit me to revert to a proper version I will strike this out.
Is there maybe something I don't understand about page reverts? I would like to bring back the original version that you took down so that I can move forward and continue to improve the political economy page, including the material I have added. If I write more on the current version, then it will overwrite the changes we are discussing and consign them to the dustbin, no? If you continue to undo my changes on this page, there is frankly no point in me working on it.
Stapler1930 (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- If an edit contains problematic content mixed with uncontroversial improvements, it's usually better to manually check the article history, and to re-add only the "good" phrases instead of the complete edit. Full reverts across several edits will always remove all changes in-between aswell. If you compare the article versions (in the "History" tab on top of the article), you'll see that I didn't revert your whole initial edit from 2 October, but manually retained some information about Pickett in "Current approaches", where he is still mentioned. On the current status: it seems like we agree on point 3 and 4 and this problem is solved with the current version, so there is no point on re-adding older versions of these phrases anyway. But we could use some additional input for points 1 and 2. I'll post about this disagreement at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and ask for other uninvolved editors to chime in. GermanJoe (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
- Update: I have restored point 2 of the disputed content, see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Disagreement_about_Political_economy for more info. If Piketty's alleged exceptional impact can be verified by an expert source, it could be added to the lead as well. Please note that all extraordinary claims and statements of opinion need a high-quality expert source. GermanJoe (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Political economy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629151809/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=5086 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=5086
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131105113916/http://bnp.binghamton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Ostrom-2010-Polycentric-Governance.pdf to http://bnp.binghamton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Ostrom-2010-Polycentric-Governance.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011071925/http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=7698 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=7698
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The Introduction
The introduction seems confused to me. It starts off explaining the meaning of the term "political economy" as it was 150 years ago. Only towards the end does it tells the reader what the current meaning is, and then in a half-baked way: 'Today, the term "economics" usually refers to the narrow study of the economy absent other political and social considerations while the term "political economy" represents a distinct and competing approach.' It seems to me it would be much clearer if it simply started with something like this:
Political economy is the study of economics together with political and social considerations.
The rest of the introduction could then be re-arranged to follow suit. Shall I?
Willbown (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MarkiyahR.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)